.

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.
Post Reply
_Fortigurn
_Emeritus
Posts: 918
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 1:32 pm

Re: Are entheogens/psychedelics against the Word of Wisdom?

Post by _Fortigurn »

Bryan Inks wrote:
Fortigurn wrote:
Stuff like that could come up in a drug trip potentially.


Examples, please. People have been taking this stuff for over a century. Let's see all the results. All the fantastic scientific discoveries. All the scientists rushing to elevate their minds with these incredible mind expanding substances.


Watson and Crick.

Eh. Seems someone beat me to it.


Yes, that's it so far. The list is two people long (and I'm being generous). I'm still waiting for more. Does it get any better than this? Are the results repeatable? Can you give me the names of the top 50 scientists in the world who use this method? The names of the top 50 psychologists and neurologists who recommend it? Hey, let's take those lists down to 10 just to make it easy.

Why do people have to try and justify their addictions and indulgences with transparently untrue excuses? Why not be honest and say 'I'm gonna get off my face with a few cones tonight', instead of pretending that they're trying to solve the mysteries of the universe?
Lazy research debunked: bcspace x 4 | maklelan x 3 | Coggins7 x 5 (by Mr. Coffee x5) | grampa75 x 1 | whyme x 2 | rcrocket x 2 | Kerry Shirts x 1 | Enuma Elish x 1|
_Ezias
_Emeritus
Posts: 1148
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2007 4:40 am

.

Post by _Ezias »

.
Last edited by Anonymous on Sat Oct 22, 2011 12:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
_gramps
_Emeritus
Posts: 2485
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 3:43 pm

Post by _gramps »

Fortigurn wrote:

Yes, that's it so far. The list is two people long (and I'm being generous). I'm still waiting for more. Does it get any better than this? Are the results repeatable? Can you give me the names of the top 50 scientists in the world who use this method? The names of the top 50 psychologists and neurologists who recommend it? Hey, let's take those lists down to 10 just to make it easy.

Why do people have to try and justify their addictions and indulgences with transparently untrue excuses? Why not be honest and say 'I'm gonna get off my face with a few cones tonight', instead of pretending that they're trying to solve the mysteries of the universe?


Maybe this will help with the numbers you are looking for Fortigurn.

I think we can provide at least 10 references for you. Let’s start with Stanislav Grof. A brief review of who he is from Wiki:

Stanislav Grof (born 1931 in Prague, Czechoslovakia) is one of the founders of the field of transpersonal psychology and a pioneering researcher into the use of altered states of consciousness for purposes of healing, growth, and insight.
Grof is known in particular for his early studies of LSD and its effects on the psyche—the field of psychedelic psychotherapy. He constructed a theoretical framework for pre- and perinatal psychology and transpersonal psychology in which LSD trips and other powerfully emotional experiences were mapped onto one's early fetal and neonatal experiences. Over time, this theory developed into an in-depth cartography of the deep human psyche. Following the legal suppression of LSD use in the late 1960s, Grof went on to discover that many of these states of mind could be explored without drugs and instead by using certain breathing techniques in a supportive environment. He continues this work today under the title "Holotropic Breathwork".

Grof received his M.D. from Charles University in Prague in 1957, and then completed his Ph.D. in Medicine at the Czechoslovakian Academy of Sciences in 1965, training as a Freudian psychoanalyst at this time. In 1967, he was invited as an Assistant Professor of Psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, USA, and went on to become Chief of Psychiatric Research at the Maryland Psychiatric Research Center where he worked with Walter Pahnke and Bill Richards among others. In 1973, Dr. Grof was invited to the Esalen Institute in Big Sur, California, and lived there until 1987 as a scholar-in-residence, developing his ideas.

Being the founding president of the International Transpersonal Association (ITA) (founded in 1977), he went on to become distinguished adjunct faculty member of the Department of Philosophy, Cosmology, and Consciousness at the California Institute of Integral Studies, a position he remains in today.

Notably, Grof's brother, Paul Grof, was chairman of the World Health Organization committee that evaluated the psychoactive compound MDMA (street name ecstasy). Stanislav helped Rick Doblin deliver information about the drug to his brother. Paul ultimately dissented from the committee's decision to regulate Ecstasy as a Schedule I drug under the Convention on Psychotropic Substances.


[url]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Grof[/url]

Here is a little of what he wrote in the preface to his book, LSD Psychotherapy:

In 1980 when this book first appeared, the timing of its publication could not have been worse. By that time, psychedelic therapy had been practically discontinued in all the countries of the world as a result of extremely stringent legislation. It made scientific research difficult, if not impossible. The image of LSD was not shaped by already existing extensive professional literature; it was dictated by mass media sensationalizing the accidents of unsupervised self-experimentation and spreading scientifically unsubstantiated rumors about chromosome damage and genetic dangers associated with this substance. Under these circumstances, it seemed that LSD Psychotherapy was destined to become an esoteric historical document of an exciting, but relatively brief and transient era of psychiatric history.

Considering the situation described above, it seems appropriate to look at some of the recent developments that justify a new edition of this work. The most important reason for making the observations from psychedelic research available to professionals, as well as the general public, is the revolutionary nature of the observations associated with it. I seriously believe that unbiased systematic study of this material would lead to changes in our understanding of the human psyche and of the nature of reality that would be as far-reaching and radical as those that were introduced into physics by the theories of relativity and the quantum theory.

The critical element here is the recognition that LSD and other psychedelics function more or less as nonspecific catalysts and amplifiers of the psyche. This is reflected in the name given by Humphrey Osmond to this group of substances; the Greek word "psychedelic" translates literally as mind-manifesting." In the dosages used in human experimentation, the classical psychedelics, such as LSD, psilocybin, and mescaline, do not have any specific pharmacological effects. They increase the energetic niveau in the psyche and the body which leads to manifestation of otherwise latent psychological processes.

The content and nature of the experiences that these substances induce are thus not artificial products of their pharmacological interaction with the brain ("toxic psychoses ), but authentic expressions of the psyche revealing its functioning on levels ordinarily not available for observation and study. A person who has taken LSD does not have an "LSD experience," but takes a journey into deep recesses of his or her own psyche. When this substance is given in the same dosage and under comparable circumstances to a large number of individuals, each of them will have a different experience reflecting the specificities of his or her psyche. In addition, serial sessions of the same person will vary in their content and show a characteristic progression.

For this reason, it does not seem to be an exaggeration to say that psychedelics, used responsibly and with proper caution, would be for psychiatry what the microscope is for biology and medicine or the telescope is for astronomy. These tools make it possible to study important processes that under normal circumstances are not available for direct observation.


http://www.psychedelic-library.org/grofpref.htm

See also Grinspoon and Bakalar, Can Drugs Be Used To Enhance The Psychotherapeutic Process? which relates some therapeutical benefits of LSD and MDMA (ecstacy), as well as, a brief mention of DMT shamanic concoctions from the Amazon.

Here is the introductory paragraph of the article:

The drug revolution that began 30 years ago has transformed psychiatry, but it has left little imprint on psychotherapeutic procedures themselves. We have used psychiatric drugs as an adjunct to psychotherapy, and psychotherapy as an adjunct to psychiatric drugs. But efforts to make use of drugs directly to enhance the process of psychotherapy—diagnosing the problem, enhancing the therapeutic alliance, facilitating the production of memories, fantasies, and insights—have been very limited. In preindustrial cultures, however, there is an ancient tradition in which drugs are used to enhance a process of psychotherapeutic healing; and from 1950 to the mid-1960s, there were 15 years of experimentation in Europe and the United States-an episode in the history of psychiatry that is now almost forgotten. The drugs used in these therapeutic efforts were psychedelic or hallucinogenic substances, both natural and synthetic. There is now a possibility that this tradition might be revived by the use of a new synthetic drug that may have many of the virtues of the older psychedelics as an enhancer of the psychotherapeutic process without most of their disadvantages.


Here is the link:

http://www.psychedelic-library.org/enhance.htm

Here are the references cited introducing some of the literature involving study with these substances:

REFERENCES
1. Furst, P. T. Hallucinogens and Culture, Chandler and Sharp, San Francisco, 1976.
2. Albaugh, B. J., and Anderson, P. 0. Peyote in the Treatment of Alcoholism among American Indians. Am. J. Psychiatry, 131:1247-51, 1974
3. Abramson, H. A., Ed. The Use of LSD in Psychotherapy and Alcoholism. Bobbs-Merrill, New York, 1967.
4. DeBold, R. C., and Leaf, Russell C., Eds. LSD, Man, and Society. Wesleyan University Press, Middletown, Connecticut, 1967.
5. Shagass, C., and Bittle, R. M. Therapeutic Effects of LSD: a Follow-up Study. J Nerv. Ment. Dis., 144:471-78, 1967.
6. Savage, C., Jackson, D., and Terrill, J. LSD, Transcendence, and the New Beginning. J. Nerv. Ment. Dis., 135:425-39, 1962
7. Grof, S., Goodman, L. E., Richards, W. A., and Kurland, A. A. LSD-assisted Psychotherapy in Patients with Terminal Cancer. Int. Pharm. 8:129-41, 1973
8. Cohen, S. Lysergic Acid Diethylamide. Side Effects and Complications. J. Nerv. Ment. Dis., 130:30-40, 1960.
9. Malleson, N. Acute Adverse Reactions to LSD in Clinical and Experimental Use in the United Kingdorn. Br. J. Psychiatry 118:229-230, 1971.
10. Strassman, R. J. Adverse Reactions to Psychedelic Drugs: a Review of the Literature. J. Nerv. Ment. Dis., 172:577-95, 1984.
11. Grof, S. LSD Psychotherapy. Hunter House Inc. Publishers. Pomona, California, 1980.
12. Vanggard, T. Indications and Counterindications for LSD Treatment. Acta Psychiatr. Scand. 40:427-37, 1964.
13. Newland, C. A. Myself and I American Library, New York, 1962.
14. Kurland, A. A, The Therapeutic Potential of LSD in Medicine. In LSD, Man, and Society. DeBold, R. and Leaf, R., Eds. Wesleyan University Press, Middletown, Connecticut, 1967, pp. 20-35.
15. Hoffer, A. A Program for the Treatment of Alcoholism: LSD, Malvaria, and Nicotinic Acid. In The Use of LSD in Psychotherapy and Alcoholism, Abramson, H., Ed. Bobbs-Merrill, New York, 1967, pp. 353-402.
16. Smart, R. G., Storm, T., Baker, E. F. W., and Solursh, L. A Controlled Study of Lysergide in the Treatment of Alcoholism. Q.J. Stud. Alcoh. 27:469-482,1984.
17. Cheek, F. E., Osmond, H., Sarett, M., and Albahary, R. S. Observations Regarding the Use of LSD-25 in the Treatment of Alcoholism. J. Psychopharmacol 1:56-74, 1966.
18. Pahnke, W. N. The Psychedelic Mystical Experience in the Human Encounter with Death. Harvard Theological Review 62:1-21, 1969.
19. Naranjo, C, The Healing journey. Ballantine Books, 1975 (orig. 1973).
20. Yensen, R., DiLeo, F., Rhead, J. C., Richard, W. A., Soskin, R. A., Turek, B., and Kurland, A.A. MD A- assisted Psychotherapy with Neurotic Outpatients: a Pilot Study. J. Nerv. and Ment. Dis., 163:233-45, 1976.
21. Riedlenger, J.E, The Scheduling of MDMA: A Pharmacist's Perspective. J. Psychoactive Drugs, 17:167-71, 1985.
22. Seymour, R. B. MDMA: Another View of Ecstacy. PharmChem Newsletter, 14:1-5, 1985.
23. Moras, K. and Strupp, H. H. Pretherapy Interpersonal Relations, Patient's Alliance, and Outcome in Brief Therapy. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry, 39:405-9, April, 1982.
24. Gomes-Schwartz, B. Effective Ingredients in Psychotherapy: Prediction of Outcome from Process Variables. J. Cons. Clin. Psychol., 46:1023-35, 1978.


Next, here is an introduction to a book titled Therapeutic Applications of LSD and Related Drugs, Robert E. L. Masters and Jean Houston:

Introduction by Peter Webster

In the mid-1960s, legislation in the United States instituted a prohibition on the use of psychedelic drugs, not only the supposedly alarming use by hippies, intellectuals, beatniks, college students, etc., but also use by scientific researchers and mental health professionals. The ban on practically all research and therapy was soon forced upon the rest of the world by international treaties and also, no doubt, by covert pressure from the CIA and other U.S. government agencies. LSD and the other psychedelic drugs were classed as "Schedule 1" substances, supposedly having no medical value or recognized uses.

Yet a significant body of scientific literature of the time indicated quite clearly that psychedelic drugs most certainly did have valuable uses in both therapy and pure research. Work that had been going on for more than a decade in Canada, for instance, had shown LSD psychotherapy to be the most effective treatment for alcoholism ever devised. Other studies had begun to show similar effectiveness for treatment of addictions, personality disorders, and a whole range of conditions.

A review of the pertinent scientific literature of the time is of great importance today, for a general review of the whole situation of the War on Drugs is increasingly leading to calls by important and influential individuals for a serious re-evaluation of that policy, if not an outright reversal leading to complete legalization of "drugs of abuse". A close scrutiny of the basis and justification for the War on Drugs is revealing not only inconsistencies, but gross deception, blatant lies, and the worst kind of propaganda used to institute and promote that War. The recognized therapeutic applications of cannabis, for instance, are still being resisted by Drug Warriors in spite of evidence that would long ago have been sufficient to get government approval had cannabis been a "new drug" invented by a pharmaceutical company. Yet cannabis remains a Schedule 1 substance.

The following essay is the introductory section of a paper published in 1970 that reveals a similar, if not even greater ignorance in the current official attitude toward therapeutic use of the psychedelic drugs. The authors are noted scientific researchers who had been working with psychedelics for many years. Their work, like that of many others, was brought to an abrupt and premature conclusion by the anti-drug hysteria which still today, perhaps more than ever, is doing far more to poison Western Civilization than any sort of "drug abuse" could possibly do.


Here is the introduction to a paper titled: Treatment of Alchoholism with Psychedelic Therapy, by Abram Hoffer:

Alcoholics Anonymous, the great self-help group-therapy movement, is the only established treatment for alcoholics. Until much more is known about the personal (biochemical and psychological), familial, and social factors that contribute to alcoholism, so it will remain. Most new therapies are merely adjunctive to AA and will continue to be so until it is shown that they have therapeutic value when used alone. In my view, psychedelic therapy is best used as a preparation for AA.

When Bill W. and Dr. Bob founded AA, alcoholism had not been accepted as a disease, either by society at large or by the medical profession. Society considered it a moral problem, but found itself confronted with an interesting dilemma, for only a small proportion of the total drinking society drank excessively. No moral sanctions were required for the majority, who eventually made social drinking an integral part of the culture.

The majority who remained moral drinkers could not understand why a minority became intemperate or alcoholic. Moral sanctions were applied on the premise that excessive drinking arose from defects of character, defects of will, and defects in society. These sanctions included education, persuasion, incarceration, and banishment. Unfortunately, the most stringent measures had little permanent effect, and the proportion of the drinking society (a concept developed by Dr. H. Osmond) remained the same or increased. Medicine also considered alcoholism a non-disease.

The founders of AA introduced the medical model first to alcoholics, later to society, and finally to the medical profession. This concept was very appealing to alcoholics because it gave them a satisfactory explanation for their misfortunes. If they were sick and not evil, then they might expect the same sort of treatment they would receive if they developed pneumonia or diabetes. Bill W. and Dr. Bob also introduced the concept of allergy, which thirty-five years ago was incorporated into medicine as a new group of diseases.

But AA insisted that alcoholism was more than a physical illness. It also carried strong personal responsibility. An alcoholic could not be censured for being an alcoholic, but he could be for doing nothing about it.

Society resisted the idea that alcoholics are sick, since it got no guidance from a reluctant medical profession. Doctors expect diseases to be more or less definable, to have treatment that may be ineffective but must be in common use, and to have a predictable prognosis. When they became convinced that AA did help large numbers of alcoholics remain sober, they gradually accepted alcoholics as patients. Even now, the majority of hospitals are extremely reluctant to admit alcoholics who are drunk, and many doctors dread seeing them in their offices. Eventually AA forced the profession to accept the fact that alcoholism, which has been estimated to afflict 5 per cent of the population, is a disease. This marked the beginning of the final solution to the problem. For, having accepted the disease concept, doctors were challenged by the enormous problems, and, in a matter of a few years, several major therapeutic discoveries were made.

The newer adjunctive therapies developed for alcoholism may be divided into the psychological and the biochemical. Psychotherapy, deconditioning therapy, and psychedelic therapy are examples of purely psychological therapy, while sugar-free diets for relative hypoglycemia, mega vitamin B3, megascorbic acid, and adrenocortical extracts (or extracts of licorice) are examples of pure chemotherapies.

Psychedelic therapy is the only therapy that has prepared alcoholics to become responsible members of AA, when previously they had been unable to do so.


Here is the link:

http://www.psychedelic-library.org/hoffer.htm

Here is a link to a study concerning the treatment of childhood schizophrenia utilizing LSD and psilocybin:

[url]
http://www.maps.org/news-letters/v07n3/07318fis.html[/url]

This link

http://www.psychedelic-library.org/thermenu.htm

will lead you to all the above research and to many other studies done with these substances.

Perhaps, that is more than ten, but I doubt it reaches one hundred.

***Edited to indicate that I have no idea why some of those links are "dead?" Just copy and paste. That should work (I hope!)
I detest my loose style and my libertine sentiments. I thank God, who has removed from my eyes the veil...
Adrian Beverland
_gramps
_Emeritus
Posts: 2485
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 3:43 pm

Post by _gramps »

Of course, I failed to mention Alexander Shulgin. Here is the wiki link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Shulgin

I wonder if William James' experiments with nitrous oxide would count in that number? Anyway, the wiki on William James:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_James

Now, where are we on a legitimate number?
I detest my loose style and my libertine sentiments. I thank God, who has removed from my eyes the veil...
Adrian Beverland
_Fortigurn
_Emeritus
Posts: 918
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 1:32 pm

Post by _Fortigurn »

Ok, so at the end of that we still have only two guys whose scientific studies have received previously undiscovered insights which they derived from LSD experiences, a couple of guys whose experiments with LDS (both personally and in the laboratory), assisted their understanding of directly related areas of research (human consciousness and psychology), though their process of investigation was the usual boring scientific method (not eating a mushroom and scribbling down all the amazing insights which followed), and a few pages demonstrating that some psychotropics in some situations may prove of medical benefit to some individuals suffering from certain pathologies and symptoms. That's it.

We still have absolutely no scientists who currently recommend taking LSD or any other hallucinogens as part of the normative process of scientific investigation. Not even ten.

I don't read of Subramanyan Chandrasekhar dropping acid to solve problems in astrophysics. I don't read of Fred Hoyle stumbling across cosmological enlightenment whilst in a hallucinogenic trance. Goodness knows if anyone needs a hand to get as much done as possible while racing against the clock it's Stephen Hawking, and yet I find his work strangely free of mescaline assisted insights.

Sir Martin Rees, Sir Arthur Eddington, Antony Hewish, George Ellis, Arno Penzias, Allan Sandage, George Smoot, Roger Penrose - I look through this by no means exhaustive list, and I find that the most significant discoveries, the deepest insights, the most outstanding revelations in science, to have consistently come from using the brain in the normal boring way. But more than this, I don't find any of these brilliant intelligences demonstrating any particular interest in using hallucinogens to enhance their problem solving capacity, even though it's clear that if anyone needs a help it's people like this. It's like the idea just hasn't taken off yet. Could there be a reason for this?

Why is it that the greatest scientific discoveries have been made by nerds and geeks with sliderules and thick glasses, not hippies with bongs and mushrooms? Could it be that the nerds and geeks actually understand the universe a whole lot better than the hippies?

And yes, I'm stereotyping for dramatic emphasis, don't take it personally.
Lazy research debunked: bcspace x 4 | maklelan x 3 | Coggins7 x 5 (by Mr. Coffee x5) | grampa75 x 1 | whyme x 2 | rcrocket x 2 | Kerry Shirts x 1 | Enuma Elish x 1|
_gramps
_Emeritus
Posts: 2485
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 3:43 pm

Post by _gramps »

Fortigurn wrote:

We still have absolutely no scientists who currently recommend taking LSD or any other hallucinogens as part of the normative process of scientific investigation. Not even ten.


Well, of course, no scientist is currently recommending taking LSD or any other hallucinogens. That is understandable given the current environment against these substances. No? They wouldn't receive any funding were they to do so. And would probably be kicked out of any institution of which they were a part.

That doesn't prove that any are taking such psychedelics now, nor does it prove that they aren't. Not many people knew that Mr. X was in fact Carl Sagan until many, many years later. Who knows, after Penrose dies, we may all find out he was an acid head. (LOL)

Sir Martin Rees, Sir Arthur Eddington, Antony Hewish, George Ellis, Arno Penzias, Allan Sandage, George Smoot, Roger Penrose - I look through this by no means exhaustive list, and I find that the most significant discoveries, the deepest insights, the most outstanding revelations in science, to have consistently come from using the brain in the normal boring way. But more than this, I don't find any of these brilliant intelligences demonstrating any particular interest in using hallucinogens to enhance their problem solving capacity, even though it's clear that if anyone needs a help it's people like this. It's like the idea just hasn't taken off yet. Could there be a reason for this?


Perhaps the illegality of the substances in question?

Oh, add Kary Mullis to the above list I posted. Nobel Prize winner in genetics. Now stigmatized in the scientific community for his insistence that there is no scientific evidence linking AIDS to the HIV virus. And I believe sitting on the NORML board of directors.

And you will have a hard time getting me to take any of your posts personally. I'm neither a nerd nor a hippie! (smiley)
I detest my loose style and my libertine sentiments. I thank God, who has removed from my eyes the veil...
Adrian Beverland
_Fortigurn
_Emeritus
Posts: 918
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 1:32 pm

Post by _Fortigurn »

gramps wrote:Fortigurn wrote:

We still have absolutely no scientists who currently recommend taking LSD or any other hallucinogens as part of the normative process of scientific investigation. Not even ten.


Well, of course, no scientist is currently recommending taking LSD or any other hallucinogens. That is understandable given the current environment against these substances. No? They wouldn't receive any funding were they to do so. And would probably be kicked out of any institution of which they were a part.


Can you supply any evidence for this? Or is this just a guess?

That doesn't prove that any are taking such psychedelics now, nor does it prove that they aren't.


I think you would be hard pressed to find any evidence that they were.

Not many people knew that Mr. X was in fact Carl Sagan until many, many years later.


I can see why he didn't exactly publicise it. It made him sound like a Charismatic or a Pentecostal having an experience with the 'Holy Ghost'.

Who knows, after Penrose dies, we may all find out he was an acid head. (LOL)


Alas, unlikely.

Perhaps the illegality of the substances in question?


Perhaps because they know the way they're doing things right now actually works?

Oh, add Kary Mullis to the above list I posted. Nobel Prize winner in genetics. Now stigmatized in the scientific community for his insistence that there is no scientific evidence linking AIDS to the HIV virus. And I believe sitting on the NORML board of directors.


Which scientific discoveries did he make while freaked off his face? It seems he recognises he wasn't actually performing cutting edge scientific research at the time. I note he was at one point abducted by aliens. Do you know if he learned anything useful from them?

And you will have a hard time getting me to take any of your posts personally. I'm neither a nerd nor a hippie! (smiley)


Glad to hear it.
Lazy research debunked: bcspace x 4 | maklelan x 3 | Coggins7 x 5 (by Mr. Coffee x5) | grampa75 x 1 | whyme x 2 | rcrocket x 2 | Kerry Shirts x 1 | Enuma Elish x 1|
_Ezias
_Emeritus
Posts: 1148
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2007 4:40 am

.

Post by _Ezias »

.
Last edited by Anonymous on Sat Oct 22, 2011 12:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
_Some Schmo
_Emeritus
Posts: 15602
Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2007 2:59 pm

Post by _Some Schmo »

Z wrote: Allowing one's free-agency to be infringed-upon in any way is generally frowned upon in the church, as can be seen in the Brethren's admonition against participating in hypnosis or certain types of emotional therapy.

When viewed from this perspective, forbidding psychadelic drugs fits pretty well into general Mormon philosophy and theology. Which is a shame, because before this explination occured to me I was pretty close to being able to justify buying some LSD from the hippies down the street. Which I would use purely for research purposes of course.


harmony wrote:The answer is No. Anything that alters reality is an absolute no-no.


Allowing one's free-agency to be infringed-upon in any way is generally frowned upon in the church? Unless, of course, it's the church doing the infringing, right?

Seems to me, given this justification, that the Mormon religion should be against the WoW.

With respect to the rest of this thread, and the topic in general, I just love how it appears that the least-enlightened people on the subject of drugs are the people who are also the most adamantly against them. Shocker!
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
_Fortigurn
_Emeritus
Posts: 918
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 1:32 pm

Post by _Fortigurn »

Some Schmo wrote:With respect to the rest of this thread, and the topic in general, I just love how it appears that the least-enlightened people on the subject of drugs are the people who are also the most adamantly against them. Shocker!


Well you would expect that. Fortunately I'm not one of the 'least-enlightened people on the subject of drugs'. Have you spent any time at erowid?
Lazy research debunked: bcspace x 4 | maklelan x 3 | Coggins7 x 5 (by Mr. Coffee x5) | grampa75 x 1 | whyme x 2 | rcrocket x 2 | Kerry Shirts x 1 | Enuma Elish x 1|
Post Reply